Clarkson: "The united states of total paranoia"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Redliner said:
Hey, hold on. Brazil has about 186millions people and all the elections are won by the total number of votes...
Personally I think no other way is really "democratic"
The problem with that is in your parliament the winning party could end up with less seats therefore they couldn't pass any laws so the pary voted for wouldn't be the leading party.
 
peter3hg2 said:
Redliner said:
Hey, hold on. Brazil has about 186millions people and all the elections are won by the total number of votes...
Personally I think no other way is really "democratic"
The problem with that is in your parliament the winning party could end up with less seats therefore they couldn't pass any laws so the pary voted for wouldn't be the leading party.

Could you elaborate on that a bit, I am confused... The winning party is the one that GETS the biggest number of seats. Otherwise they couldn't be the winning party.

(now obviously there are alliances etc. between various parties, but still)
 
mmap said:
peter3hg2 said:
Redliner said:
Hey, hold on. Brazil has about 186millions people and all the elections are won by the total number of votes...
Personally I think no other way is really "democratic"
The problem with that is in your parliament the winning party could end up with less seats therefore they couldn't pass any laws so the pary voted for wouldn't be the leading party.

Could you elaborate on that a bit, I am confused... The winning party is the one that GETS the biggest number of seats. Otherwise they couldn't be the winning party.

(now obviously there are alliances etc. between various parties, but still)
Redliner said
Brazil has about 186millions people and all the elections are won by the total number of votes...
which I assume he means the general election. I took this to mean a general election is won off total number of votes not seats. I may have just misunderstood and he means all votes are counted for every seat.
 
Ah yes, well not familiar with the Brasilian electoral system myself either so you could be right with your assumption.
 
zenkidori said:
The only way to be truly democratic is to count each and every vote, and not have an electoral college. This goes for everything that needs voting on, every law, everything. the US is not a true democracy, it is a Federal Republic.

The average person in the US is far too comfortable to set out to change anything, or to even take part in something someone else has started.

GW lost the popular vote the first time, but won the electoral. You could say he lost or won and be right. He won both votes the second time, but there are other reasons for this besides saying people wanted him to be president.
You're not getting the point mate, the supreme court stopped the count. They stopped it, no one could know! :)

Fox won Bush the election, at least in my oppinion.

When it comes to different electoral systems, it's true that most systems don't represent the number of votes for each party in an exact way, but whatever the system is, you need to count all the votes. It's just common sense.
 
peter3hg2 said:
mmap said:
peter3hg2 said:
Redliner said:
Hey, hold on. Brazil has about 186millions people and all the elections are won by the total number of votes...
Personally I think no other way is really "democratic"
The problem with that is in your parliament the winning party could end up with less seats therefore they couldn't pass any laws so the pary voted for wouldn't be the leading party.

Could you elaborate on that a bit, I am confused... The winning party is the one that GETS the biggest number of seats. Otherwise they couldn't be the winning party.

(now obviously there are alliances etc. between various parties, but still)
Redliner said
Brazil has about 186millions people and all the elections are won by the total number of votes...
which I assume he means the general election. I took this to mean a general election is won off total number of votes not seats. I may have just misunderstood and he means all votes are counted for every seat.

Yes, that can happen (winning party not being the leading party). And you are right, sometimes the winning party has trouble passing laws, so they must settle deals to pass laws.
In short: In any public position, people get elected by direct vote. For mayor, governor and president, whoever gets 50% plus one vote of all valid votes gets elected, it's that simple. Anything else you need me to explaind? Please ask, I will gladly try to. :)
 
This has been bugging me for a bit, and I'm glad I finally got this off my chest:
Z Draci said:
BlaRo said:
That's a pretty idiotic comment right there. You've clearly never been to America, have you? America's not a dangerous place to live. How do I know? I live there.

There's no denying the statistics, but you're not going to be shot the second you step off the plane. America isn't a Third World Jungle full of bandits running around with guns. Most crime in America, like in any country, centers around the cities. Guess where most people live? Like me, in the suburbs where there's hardly any crime and certainly no murders. America's also made up of many ethnic groups which naturally lead to more gangs than in England and the rest of Europe. Anybody here a Blood or a Crip? I thought not.

It's the same as any country. So don't go portraying America as a cesspool of evil with your European arrogance.

So you're comparing America to Third World countries now? How is that supposed to strengthen your arguement? Try comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges. Yes, the US has a lower murder rate than Colombia so we must be doing well!

Relatively speaking the US is a dangerous place. Perhaps I was spoiled by living in countries like Germany and Japan. For me America is the most dangerous and most crime ridden country in which I've lived (that's a fact). The reason the US has high crime rates is rooted in the metality of the people themselves. People commit so many crimes that most Americans have grown to ignore and overlook them.

"I know I'm breaking the law but it's not a big deal. As long as I'm not caught I'm doing nothing wrong. Why do the police go after me for commiting a crime? Don't they have anything better to do?"

That is the kind of mentality I encounter EVERYDAY from Americans in my own city! If that isn't distressing then I don't know what is. And guess what. I met far less scum that thought like that in Germany and Japan.

Bad parenting? Lack of respect and morals?
I'm not saying all Americans are like this. But they are more abundant here than in other developed countries. And many well traveled Americans share my views as well.
You've missed the point. I was pointing out how silly peter sounded by saying that all of America was dangerous. I live in the suburbs, have done so my entire life, and have experienced little crime firsthand. You, however, live in the shadow of Los Angeles, so your perception of American crime is going to be different than mine. Don't tar all of America with the same brush; like in any country, it varies.
 
I guess the best way to make America better is to remove Dubya from power. I am still amazed the American populace voted this gaffe-prone imbecile back into the White House.
 
ishigakisensei said:
He is just the figure head. The neo-Con movement must be destroyed for America to survive.

Does that include the laughable FOX News channel?
 
My problem with Dubya, and in fact the problem of most commentators, is not that he's an idiot. It's that he's willfully ignorant- he would rather not know. Isn't that incredibly dangerous for someone in a position of power? Why is that type of behaviour glorified and rewarded?

I've never gotten a good answer. Probably, America's non-recent history is all about working, simple living-off-the-land life and frontiersmanship. So many people, like May and Clarkson point out, want to return to "simplicity". Unfortunately, simplicity doesn't make good global politics.
 
Redliner said:
Hey, hold on. Brazil has about 186millions people and all the elections are won by the total number of votes...
Personally I think no other way is really "democratic"

I agree about the "only real democratic way" thing. I hate the fact that countries such as the UK and the US claim that they have a democratic system but still allow some votes to count more than others.

I believe that the government should represent the peoples wishes, whoever gets the most votes should therefore win. If 51% of the country want Mr Smith's Party in power, then I believe Mr Smith's Party should be in power.

It should not matter that those 51% were all in one place, or in places that don't count as much. Or that the place in which you live only has 12 votes.

Unless everyone has a fair say and every voice is counted equaly then it is not fair or democratic.
 
Katherine said:
I guess the best way to make America better is to remove Dubya from power. I am still amazed the American populace voted this gaffe-prone imbecile back into the White House.

That wouldn't actually do that much to improve the lives of Americans.
 
Katherine said:
I guess the best way to make America better is to remove Dubya from power. I am still amazed the American populace voted this gaffe-prone imbecile back into the White House.

In all honesty, any change in the government isn't going to change anything at home.

Say in 2008 a democrat is elected. What is the first thing they will do? Pull troops out of Iraq and slash defense spending, causing a downturn in our economy and even more resentment outside this country against this country, than clearly already exists.

How does that fix crime? How does that fix a flawed educational system (and I would argue they would make the education system worse instead of better)? How does that fix a health care system that basically scares off good doctors for fear of frivolous lawsuits? How does it change the legal system to prevent frivolous lawsuits?

None of these will change ANYTHING. The only way living in America is going to change is if localities make it happen. If anyone is to blame for the problems in the US, blame the congress, because Bush has very little influence over the day to day lives of Americans in America (foreign policy is different). If the congress would get off their asses and stop trying to pass a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and creating lists of "terrorist targets" that are not really terrorist targets. If congress would actually enforce the system of checks and balances that it is responsible for, some problems could have been averted.

Heck who knows, if the democrats get elected all of that money that has been driving the defense sectors up, will likely get dumped in to giving people money who shouldn't be getting it (i.e. FEMA relief, and people on welfare for 5 years). Taxes will probably go up too, just because they'll want to take more of my money away from me to pay for their programs, which will never benefit me.

On a side note, this is getting fairly political, if it continues this way, it may get moved to the Political Discussion forum (just a heads up).
 
getting political? :roll:

One problem is that our two parties aren't all that different, democrat or republican, pretty much the same things would happen. What we are seeing in the media is really a battle between the far right neo-conservatives and the far left liberals, neither group which represents the will of the people as a whole, the average person doesn't agree with either one of them.

not that this current discussion isn't grossly off topic.
 
hokiethang said:
In all honesty, any change in the government isn't going to change anything at home.

Your absurdity knows no bounds! Removing neo-Cons from positions of power would most certainly change a hell of a lot here in the US. D'uh.

Say in 2008 a democrat is elected. What is the first thing they will do? Pull troops out of Iraq and slash defense spending, causing a downturn in our economy and even more resentment outside this country against this country, than clearly already exists.

Reality is your kryptonite. Troops will be pulled out of Iraq prior to 2008 and it's quite likely that the Pentagon will not be forced to accept equipment they never asked for just to satisfy a lobbyist payoff. The economy is already in a downturn and getting out of Iraq and/or raising taxes is the only way to slow down the coming trainwreck caused by the Republicans.

How does that fix crime? How does that fix a flawed educational system (and I would argue they would make the education system worse instead of better)?

Crime is a different issue. Liberals can multitask - something that Republicans are incapable of. You are not qualified to speak about the educational system.

How does that fix a health care system that basically scares off good doctors for fear of frivolous lawsuits?

Lie. Tort reform is just code speak for protecting insurance companies' profits.


How does it change the legal system to prevent frivolous lawsuits?

Loser pays systen.

None of these will change ANYTHING. The only way living in America is going to change is if localities make it happen. If anyone is to blame for the problems in the US, blame the congress, because Bush has very little influence over the day to day lives of Americans in America (foreign policy is different).

You are very wrong about that. Bush has appointed heads of federal departments that have a great impact on the lives of people. Move out West and tell the people that the timber/coal/mining industries haven't changed at all under Bush. Go to New Orleans and tell them that Bush had nothign to do with appointing/promoting incompetent people who are not up to the task. No, Bush is not responsible for everything but he is head of the Executive Branch and once in the Big Chair, you take what comes with it.

If the congress would get off their asses and stop trying to pass a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and creating lists of "terrorist targets" that are not really terrorist targets. If congress would actually enforce the system of checks and balances that it is responsible for, some problems could have been averted.

This is the most intelligent and correct thing that you have said. I really do not see how you can post such inane things and yet think this above. This brief respite is utterly destroyed by the rest of your post.

Heck who knows, if the democrats get elected all of that money that has been driving the defense sectors up, will likely get dumped in to giving people money who shouldn't be getting it (i.e. FEMA relief, and people on welfare for 5 years).

You mindlessly support corporate welfare to the military/industrial complex as though that is the basis of the US economy. Wow, CLUE is more than a boardgame that you should look into. No country has ever benifitted from a protracted war. True over 3000 years ago and true today.

Taxes will probably go up too, just because they'll want to take more of my money away from me to pay for their programs, which will never benefit me.

No, taxes will go up so that the US will not go bankrupt to CHINA & JAPAN! Get a clue man. We're spening ourselves into oblivion. Try living forever on credit without ever making a payment and see just how long you personally can make it without a banker ever coming to get his money.


Intellectual Conservatism is dead and you do nothing to change that fact.

zenkidori said:
What we are seeing in the media is really a battle between the far right neo-conservatives and the far left liberals

There is no such thing as a Far Left Liberal. That name is just a made up boogeyman of the Far Right. Anyone....anyone period who is Far Left is in no way Liberal. Left extermist/Right extermist are just two sides of the same coin using different vocabularies and justifications for their grabs at absolute power.
 
There is no such thing as a Far Left Liberal.
Yes there is because it's just a label and that label is applied to certain people in this country giving it a certain meaning in this country. They could be called "bright pink blackbears" and while there aren't any, that's thier label.

Both groups go against the very ideals this country was founded on by wanting to push thier personal social policy on every citizen. What's more is thier use of emotive terms and pushing personal and irrelevant issues onto the center stage have ganered blind supporters on both sides. These people aren't thinking about the country, or the constitution, or why we are here today, they are thinking about making everyone else like them, and agree with them without regard for anyone else. These groups are loud in voice yet small in number, but that is changing, sadly.
 
ishigakisensei said:
Say in 2008 a democrat is elected. What is the first thing they will do? Pull troops out of Iraq and slash defense spending, causing a downturn in our economy and even more resentment outside this country against this country, than clearly already exists.

Reality is your kryptonite. Troops will be pulled out of Iraq prior to 2008 and it's quite likely that the Pentagon will not be forced to accept equipment they never asked for just to satisfy a lobbyist payoff. The economy is already in a downturn and getting out of Iraq and/or raising taxes is the only way to slow down the coming trainwreck caused by the Republicans.

So pulling troops out and leaving Iraq to fight a civil war with no outside help is going to put is in any better league with any other nations in the region? I don't think so. We have to stay the course in Iraq and Afghanistan and get those countries at least to the point where they can protect themselves. Pulling out of Iraq immediately, isn't going to do that.

How does that fix crime? How does that fix a flawed educational system (and I would argue they would make the education system worse instead of better)?

Crime is a different issue. Liberals can multitask - something that Republicans are incapable of. You are not qualified to speak about the educational system.

How is it a different issue? I don't believe the liberals give a flying rats ass about crime and education. They want to make education more touchy feely, and more emotion based, putting us further behind the rest of the world. I don't like either side's policies on crime or education.

How does that fix a health care system that basically scares off good doctors for fear of frivolous lawsuits?

Lie. Tort reform is just code speak for protecting insurance companies' profits.


How does it change the legal system to prevent frivolous lawsuits?

Loser pays systen.

Actually I don't give two flying shits about the insurance companies. I would prefer to have good doctors not scared out of the business by frivolous lawsuits. I would love to see a loser pays system in those cases, but the Democrats aren't going to make it happen. They'll promise it, and if they get to power, they won't actually do it.

None of these will change ANYTHING. The only way living in America is going to change is if localities make it happen. If anyone is to blame for the problems in the US, blame the congress, because Bush has very little influence over the day to day lives of Americans in America (foreign policy is different).

You are very wrong about that. Bush has appointed heads of federal departments that have a great impact on the lives of people. Move out West and tell the people that the timber/coal/mining industries haven't changed at all under Bush. Go to New Orleans and tell them that Bush had nothign to do with appointing/promoting incompetent people who are not up to the task. No, Bush is not responsible for everything but he is head of the Executive Branch and once in the Big Chair, you take what comes with it.

Yeah, because Bush was responsible for putting the governor of louisiana and the mayor of new orleans in power. The majority of the problems in Louisiana can be tracked back to the corrupt state and local governments. I still lay more blame for the problems across this country with congress, because they never actually face them, they go off spending time on shit that doesn't matter (like constitutional amendments that don't need to be made and terrorism watch lists that include bakeries).

If Congress hadn't wasted as much time they would be able to legislate those incompetent fools into a corner, and protect the system, through checks and balances. The checks and balances system was setup to prevent the "Big Chair" mentality, and allows congress (and the DOJ) oversight of ALL executive activity.

Taxes will probably go up too, just because they'll want to take more of my money away from me to pay for their programs, which will never benefit me.

No, taxes will go up so that the US will not go bankrupt to CHINA & JAPAN! Get a clue man. We're spening ourselves into oblivion. Try living forever on credit without ever making a payment and see just how long you personally can make it without a banker ever coming to get his money.

So you'll promise that when the Democrats come to power, I won't see news stories about people on welfare taking a limo to their minimum wage burger flipping job every morning? You are promising that all tax raises will go out of country to pay back debt? You are promising that the next hurricane that wipes out Louisiana will not end up with the money being spent at strip clubs and liquor stores? For some reason I don't think that would change, because the Democrats have no problem giving my money to other people in this country. All of a tax increase won't go to creditors, especially if the democrats are involved.

I hadn't checked in on this thread in a while. I'm moving it to the Political forum now.
 
HEY EVERYBODY --> JC WROTE ?imitation cheese? :lol:

That's funny!!!

haz
 
hokiethang said:
How does that fix a health care system that basically scares off good doctors for fear of frivolous lawsuits?

Lie. Tort reform is just code speak for protecting insurance companies' profits.


How does it change the legal system to prevent frivolous lawsuits?

Loser pays systen.

Actually I don't give two flying shits about the insurance companies. I would prefer to have good doctors not scared out of the business by frivolous lawsuits. I would love to see a loser pays system in those cases, but the Democrats aren't going to make it happen. They'll promise it, and if they get to power, they won't actually do it.

Do you not have loser pays in any civil case in America?
And also in the UK doctors can only be liable for gross negligence like amputating the wrong leg or something like that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top